Time to Give Up?

  • Thread starter Thread starter numbersix
  • Start date Start date
A mistake that most punters make is to increase their stake on shorter priced horses. The correct thing to do is to increase stakes in accordance with an increasing degree of value, and few odds on shots are better value than horses which you genuinely fancy at bigger prices (although they can offer excellent value on occasion). If you are able to bet each way, then you will almost always find greater value in backing horses in the 3/1 to 10/1 range, as long as the race shape is correct. It's a huge mistake to look for horses at particular prices as a cue to back or lay. You should have an idea of which horses you believe will offer value and then play those to a stake which is dependant on the value you believe they offer.
 
Unfortunately I just made the same old mistake on the Gosden filly at Folkestone. Followng his treble yesterday I thought she looked a shoe in. This is so typical - whereas I laid his unraced animal yesterday on the grounds that unraced maidens at odds on seemed poor value, today I backed Anne Of Kiev due to stable form, her clear advantage on OR and RPR and a decent draw.

And booooom! I think that exemplifies what I spoke of yesterday - the feeling of miserable luck when logic has no place. Part of me said lay her as there have been 4 odds on winners in a row over two days and the laws of averages said one was due to get beat, but when I studied the form she seemed a shoe in. Needless to say I had twice my normal stake (btw to give this perspective these days my normal stake is £10, or if long odds on I seek to win a net £10. A bit mad really and in need of overhaul.
 
I think each way form the 7/2 - 16/1 price range is the only way to go. These days my usual bet is €25/€35/€65 e/w depending how Bad an e/w race etc. If your backing the fancied runners and beating the price you will do o.k in the long run and hack out a profit without the major swings backing short price selections inccur.
 
numbersix said:
laws of averages said one was due to get beat
Click to expand...

there's no such thing..... :) The 5 events in question are mutually exclusive.

Incidentally, just to further put you off odds on shots. do you realise that in order to turn a 10% profit backing odds on shots at an average of 8/11, you need to have a 64% win strike rate (at level stakes)......
 
Do you know, the first thing I thought when you said you backed a Gosden odds on favouroute and it got beat was "did it come second?". I thought that because to increase your chance of getting the value in a race you should always consider what will come second (especially when thinking a 8/15 shot was good value), therefore covering another aspect of the event. Now I am not articulating this very well but surely you considered what would be her dangers and if there was any value in the forecast? Which paid 9.17. You might have done it the wrong way round but if you'd selected the correct two horses you'd have a 50% chance in that scenerio, and thats presuming you didn't do it in a reverse.

I note the second favourite won.
 
Last edited:
simmo said:
there's no such thing..... :) The 5 events in question are mutually exclusive.

Incidentally, just to further put you off odds on shots. do you realise that in order to turn a 10% profit backing odds on shots at an average of 8/11, you need to have a 64% win strike rate (at level stakes)......
Click to expand...

Agreed Simmo ~ no punter can believe in the law of averages. I love the logic of people who know some statistics but don't understand mathematics. My favourite is this extreme example:

"Favourites win three out of every eight races. On an eight race card, the first five favourites lose. Therefore you should re-mortgage your house and have all your money on the last three favourites in a treble, since statistically, they must win"

Everyone agrees that the above example is foolishness in the extreme, but a surprisingly high proportion of everyday punters believe that a run of successive beaten favourites make the next one more likely to win. This is an absolute fallacy.
 
EC1 said:
i wouldn't worry No6

according to Betfair...99.5% of punters lose..which means most folk...except on messageboards...where 99.5% are all winners
Click to expand...

The best evidence for this is in the newspaper napsters competition. Broadly speaking 70% tend to be in deficit, theres a 10% spread which is braodly breaking even (the spread 70 to 80%). The spot between 80 - 90% usually has small winners in it, 91% to 97% make a reasonably if not astronomical profit, where as only the top 1-2% make a significant amount.

I've done very little of late. Shite weather has put a damper on most of my preferred methods and I've simply elected to sit it out. I have noticed a slight increase in these kind of threads in the last few months though, and more people than is usually the case, being prepared to admit to suffering
 
have had a really frustrating time of it this year, with the worst part of my backing being the terrible record of odds on shots I backed to win which have cost me dear.

So today I resolved not to back the odds on shots to win but to lay them as over time I am bound to make a small profit. So what happens? First up a debutant turns me over - every odds on debutant I back to win gets beat!
Click to expand...

Thats where the problem is....

Simply switching from one system to another. A blanket approach. Makes as much sense as a system of backing nothing but 4-1 shots.
 
I'd be surprised if they did Rory, its certainly a strange USP to adopt!!!

In any event, surely the whole thing about betfair is that it's supposed to be punters backing against each other, and theoretically therefore one loser is another winner. I realise that bookies and pro's use it so it isn't quite so pure as the adverts would have you believe, but I'd have thought there were more winners on the exchanges then there would eb in a conventional office where you can't lay
 
Betfair don't claim that 99.5% of punters are losers though, do they?
Click to expand...

I reckon thats very unlikely. And over what period?

With the book so tight, it wouldnt take much luck/diligance either way to be slightly ahead of the game at least
 
Betting level stakes on markets with high levels on liquidity and to a tight margin, in theory you should only be 5% ahead or behind in the long run.
 
The best evidence for this is in the newspaper napsters competition
Click to expand...

which is a nonsense in itself isnt it?

One selection per day? Does any semi serious punter work in that way?

Far more relevant would be a tipster who only tips when they feel they have something worthwhile. Could go a few weeks without a horse and then have 3 on the same day
 
Everyone agrees that the above example is foolishness in the extreme, but a surprisingly high proportion of everyday punters believe that a run of successive beaten favourites make the next one more likely to win. This is an absolute fallacy.
Click to expand...

Ive heard that too. Its superb isnt it?
 
martin said:
Do you know, the first thing I thought when you said you backed a Gosden odds on favouroute and it got beat was "did it come second?". I thought that because to increase your chance of getting the value in a race you should always consider what will come second (especially when thinking a 8/15 shot was good value), therefore covering another aspect of the event.
Click to expand...

I think you're spot on Martin, it makes perfect sense to me and its something I always look for when I think I've found a winner. All you need do is take 10% of your intended back stake, and re-direct it into a forecast.

I seem tot hink we've half talked about this before and in many respects it deserves a thread of its own, but it's apparent to me that thos eof you who are feeling the pinch a bit, aren't necessarily mis-reading races but simply not betting very strategically. That is to say that staking is an often misunderstood, or not fully appreciated skill.

I'd contend that a good gambler with a limited knowledge of racing, will out perform a poor gambler with a superior knowledge of racing. I'd happily trade in 5% of my alleged racing knowledge for a 5% better understanding of 'how' to gamble. It's the reverse side of the equation given that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and I'm surprised how little interest is shown in it.

For my part I've never been too good with short prices and my strike rate isn't massively different to those at double figures. To no small extent my winnings at 3/1 - 7/2 and under are wiped out by my losses. I only really make a profit from those at about 12/1 and over. Although my S/R is better at the shorter prices, it isn't proportionately better to the price. That is to say the curve is not a perfect straight linear one as one would expect with something like the laws of probability (which don't apply to horses anyway). Although I often state that 5/2 is the minimum price I'll take, I have to confess to having broken this too many times for me to hold out. In reality 6/4 is about as low as I'll go.

For the most part I'm simply happy to sit and wait
 
I have a system!

.......send me more money



Boring as it might sound, surely only hard and diligent form research from which the 'on the day' factors can be added, is the only way any punter will stand any chance of getting ahead

wish i had the time to do so
 
Warbler said:
I'd happily trade in 5% of my alleged racing knowledge for a 5% better understanding of 'how' to gamble. It's the reverse side of the equation given that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and I'm surprised how little interest is shown in it.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. I've recently been using an excel sheet for betting in runing on soccer. To says its made a difference is an understatement. I'd noticed that I had a terrible habit of betting on "related" markets such as when one team has a high goal expectation verus weak opposiotion I was backing overs and the team to win. The problem being if the team did not win you had little or no chance of collecting on overs.
 
in fact at the last count on TRF..only me and Dave Jay admitted to being losers..out of all their members:D;):rolleyes:
Click to expand...

More like that a lot of punters might not be too sure either way. A lot probably keep their betting to relatively small sums and certainly not every day. With that being the case and with betfair and a few bookies accounts to shop around with, unlikely to be wildly up or massively down
 
Have you Warbler or anyone else got any info on how this toteswinger bet is developing, are the pools increasing?

Sometimes I have actually considered backing a horse i'm sure will win, and backing it in a straight forecast to beat every other horse in the race, in the hope a 33/1 shot or something like that gets second. Thats probably a foolish idea, but I can think of many occasions where it would have increased my winnings 5 fold. Must try it sometime, though I think the idea that i'm backing what I know will be X % of losers puts me off (and i'm probably not good enough to get the winner when I need to aswell lol).
 
Last edited:
chrisbeekracing said:
May I say thank you very much for my winnings today, the golden rule of laying odds on shots, is not taking on ones which are so highly regarded and opposing a Pivotal is soft ground off the same mark it won off last week, isn't exactly a great move.
Click to expand...


thats such a bollox post Chris...really surprised at you

there are many highly regarded odds on shots that lose

blanket support of any sire on a set going they are supposed to excel on is a one way street to the poor house..lazy punting at it's worse to boot

horses running off the same mark aren't exactly good bets either

thanking someone in that way for taking their money is awful arrogance

aftertiming..just thrown in as well..ouch


all in all...a dire post...one of the worst I've read

now then..I haven't read beyond that post yet...but I will bet not one person on here has pulled you about it...shame on them is all I can say

I wonder if I win the bet;)
 
Last edited:
rorydelargy said:
Agreed Simmo ~ no punter can believe in the law of averages. I love the logic of people who know some statistics but don't understand mathematics. My favourite is this extreme example:

"Favourites win three out of every eight races. On an eight race card, the first five favourites lose. Therefore you should re-mortgage your house and have all your money on the last three favourites in a treble, since statistically, they must win"

Everyone agrees that the above example is foolishness in the extreme, but a surprisingly high proportion of everyday punters believe that a run of successive beaten favourites make the next one more likely to win. This is an absolute fallacy.
Click to expand...

I must confess I subscribe to that view during a "chase" scenario. Guilty as charged.

Anyway, I knew what would happen today would indeed happen - I reverted to a back strategy, and of the 9 horses sent off 6/4 or less today laying them all (excluding the dead heat at Beverley, where needless to say I backed the Jarvis animal:mad:) would have yielded a 2.14 pts profit - whereas I went progressively kamikaze and caned over half the current bank (started the day on £122 left with £50 now till pay day).

I have a long way to go to make this thing work.

I take Simmo's point too that the strike rate on its own is meaningless - when I tell some people I am on 38% ytd, they say oh thats good. I say, no its not I am down over £2k! Of course anyone could get a mid 30s% SR by blind backing non-handicap favs at most courses.

I think today probably tells me I need to have more than a week's break - maybe a month off to clear the head as today it wasn't until I had backed two losers at Folkestone I realised the going had changed to soft.
 
Chris's post was just a bit of tongue in cheek and as some of us happen to know he was on mega good tipping form on the day - and when he is on song it's because he has put in a lot of RESEARCH!!

Added to that maybe most of us thought his points about the horse in question were quite correct - he was going on the HORSE, the conditions, the opposition, and therefore its realistic chance; not on some arbitrary numbers system!
So he was using a jokey way to point out to numbersix where he was going wrong :p


EC1 said:
thats such a bollox post Chris...really surprised at you.........
all in all...a dire post...one of the worst I've read

now then..I haven't read beyond that post yet...but I will bet not one person on here has pulled you about it...shame on them is all I can say
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top